Koh Tao murder trial reconvenes in Koh Samui

[catsanddogs]

From the article by Sarah Yuen today:

Mr Miller’s family are attending the latest round of court hearings on Koh Samui but Ms Witheridge’s family are not.

They are receiving daily written reports instead.

I wonder how that works, since no note-taking is allowed in court? It would seem that the Witheridge family are having to rely on the press reports from Sarah Yuen, just like the rest of us.

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/senior_police_officers_give_contradictory_evidence_at_hannah_witheridge_murder_trial_1_4215995?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

I expect they still have a representative feeding back to them as they did have previously.

[007cableguy]

Well the prosecution has finished its solid testimony to convict the violent vicious monsterous Burmese two backed up to the hilt by certain boardmembers!, Unless someone has ripped out my brain and inserted a cabbage then their watertight case has got to be a total joke and anyone who else believes the drivel they came out with needs to have good look at themselves!

[catsanddogs]

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/senior_police_officers_give_contradictory_evidence_at_hannah_witheridge_murder_trial_1_4215995

In court today, one of the main police investigators, Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod, said he had spoken to the police pathologist on the 2nd and 3rd of October, at the same time as the defendants were arrested and two weeks after the autopsies, but otherwise he had no further contact with him.

However, the defence lawyers representing the two Myanmar workers produced a statement from the pathologist, stating that Lt Col Nurod had made two separate trips to meet with him in Bangkok in late October, and again on the November 18 after both defendants had retracted their confessions.

The pathologist’s statement said that the meetings had included discussion on the hair found in Ms Witheridge’s hand.

When challenged in court, Lt Col Nurod admitted that further discussion about the hair strand had indeed taken place, but he did not reveal exactly what was said.

[AleG]

So why did they produce the evidence in court as it has no bearing on the prosecutions case.

In fact if anything it undermines it as the hair was supposed to be another nail against the B2.

As far as I know that hair was not part of the evidence presented against the defendants.

Even back in September the police were saying that they couldn't get any useful information out of it.

September 19th: "DNA testing on a strand of blonde hair found in Ms Witheridge's hand also proved inconclusive"

[Madaussie]

Asking someone to wash the alleged murder weapon is destroying the evidence

Yes, that would had been the case if that would had been the case...

"CORRECTION: The beach cleaner who removed the garden hoe from the crime scene did not tell the court he also washed the tool, as was originally reported."

... which it wasn't, so it wasn't.

I'm afraid the police gave contradictory statements (again) to the court about this.

A police officer had earlier testified that the hoe was used to murder the victims, then the blood-stained tool was placed under a bag and discarded on the beach.

But U Oh testified that the hoe was in the same place he left it the night before, the lawyer said.

Also, police cajoled him to say he washed off the blood from the hoe. However, that is not what he told the judge. He said that he had not paid any attention to the hoe and was not aware of whether there was any blood on it or not. https://www.dvb.no/news/police-tried-to-manipulate-koh-tao-witness-court-told/54664

Who would you like to believe, the police or the owner of the Hoe?

I would believe the person actually giving testimony in court, who was also the person that actually handled the hoe; not the lawyer of the defendants, making claims about what the police allegedly did to the press.

Perhaps you could enlighten us which police officer you and which pathologist you believe.

Either or is suffice for us. Heads or tails? Khun ? or Khun? as it appears there's conflicting testimony

[Chetzee]

epistemic....

Pmls !

[Madaussie]

Nigeone is absolutely correct.

Who cares about who had the phone, who got rid of it, etc etc. that is all a nonsense because.....

RTP have produced no evidence at all who the phone belonged to. All they have said in evidence is that someone else told them who it belonged to. That is not evidence, that is hearsay and under rules of evidence must be dismissed.

The only way it can be used as evidence, as the RTP have staed the UK police told them, is for the UK representative to stae it as ebidence.

Until that happens then the phone issue is completely not relevant.

The Thai Gov/Police could have proved who the phone belonged to if they had of wanted to. Its all about the desire to uncover evidence to suit a particular need. They had the full details of the phone. A sim card as well. ALL the serial numbers the IMEI number and they will know when it logged onto the Thai network who its billing was to. You can insert the sim into any phone by the way and pull of records as well. They just didn't want to. It may have had damage but it was not destroyed.

[Madaussie]

From the article by Sarah Yuen today:

Mr Miller’s family are attending the latest round of court hearings on Koh Samui but Ms Witheridge’s family are not.

They are receiving daily written reports instead.

I wonder how that works, since no note-taking is allowed in court? It would seem that the Witheridge family are having to rely on the press reports from Sarah Yuen, just like the rest of us.

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/senior_police_officers_give_contradictory_evidence_at_hannah_witheridge_murder_trial_1_4215995?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

memory. notes in the breaks. same as Sarah does. In fact she may well be the person they contracted to report for them. She is a very nice lady..

[Gweiloman]

Guys, please stop the bickering... We risk the topic to be closed again and is not worth, really.

The bickering just let win who wants to derail the thread and have it closed.

Sorry to bother

Agreed but its very difficult when people make incorrect statements and they are called on it, then they still come back and attempt to play with words in a dishonest debate to try and hide their inaccuracies then its very difficult to resist. But I am trying

I agree this was a mistake , but so many things has been reported in the media and it's difficult to separate so called facts from badly written reports by the media , still we can discuss it here and state an opinon without the usual bickering .

Carry on.

I see that as the prosecution's case get's weaker by the day, you are inching over ever that slightly to try and retain some credibility.

[Gweiloman]

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/senior_police_officers_give_contradictory_evidence_at_hannah_witheridge_murder_trial_1_4215995

In court today, one of the main police investigators, Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod, said he had spoken to the police pathologist on the 2nd and 3rd of October, at the same time as the defendants were arrested and two weeks after the autopsies, but otherwise he had no further contact with him.

However, the defence lawyers representing the two Myanmar workers produced a statement from the pathologist, stating that Lt Col Nurod had made two separate trips to meet with him in Bangkok in late October, and again on the November 18 after both defendants had retracted their confessions.

The pathologist’s statement said that the meetings had included discussion on the hair found in Ms Witheridge’s hand.

When challenged in court, Lt Col Nurod admitted that further discussion about the hair strand had indeed taken place, but he did not reveal exactly what was said.

Hang on a minute!!!

You mean.... you mean.... someone is actually telling porky pies in court and under oath??!!?? Well, I never.....

[Gweiloman]

So why did they produce the evidence in court as it has no bearing on the prosecutions case.

In fact if anything it undermines it as the hair was supposed to be another nail against the B2.

As far as I know that hair was not part of the evidence presented against the defendants.

Even back in September the police were saying that they couldn't get any useful information out of it.

September 19th: "DNA testing on a strand of blonde hair found in Ms Witheridge's hand also proved inconclusive"

Yes, it's not "damning" evidence against the B2. Just damning evidence against the integrity of the RTP and their defenders (you know who you are)

[berybert]

I'm going to just point out that you admit of not knowing what all the 65 witnesses (66 now it seems) testified yet decided that no evidence was presented, just because you don't know something doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Evidence was presented, the phone that some are trying very hard to pretend doesn't matter, DNA evidence, CCTV footage and witness testimony.

Of course it's up to the judge to decide if that evidence warrants a guilt conviction but simply declaring that no evidence was presented is just not true.

And of course YOU DO know that all 65/66 witnesses testified? And YOU DO know the evidence submitted and explained, especially about the mobile phone because you're actually at the trial Alex?

You'll get splinters clutching at all these straws one day Alex.

You're one of the few people who seem to believe that the prosecutions case has been flawless, and rock solid, and right from day 1 you had something against the B2, and were "very protective" towards Koh Tao.

No, I don't know if every single one of the 65 witnesses the prosecution filed with the court took the stand, but I'm not the one making claims about how many of them, if any, didn't show up. It's a matter of epistemic responsibility, you know? Not claiming to know something that is not actually known.

For the record:

This is false: "You're one of the few people who seem to believe that the prosecutions case has been flawless"

This is false too: "right from day 1 you had something against the B2"

And the insinuations in this are also false: "were "very protective" towards Koh Tao"

Yes, I for once agree with AleG. Point 3, he is very protective towards Koh Tao, should read he is very protective towards Nomsod.

[berybert]

Oh I don't know, someone saw the bloody hoe on it's original location before it was moved? It doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination, at least not as much as some vague but nefarious maneuver to move it somewhere else and then bringing it back.

You wrote:

Suffice to say that one of the persons being accused of disturbing the crime scene was responsible for retrieving the murder weapon back to where it was originally found, that's not the actions of someone wrecking the scene, that's the actions of someone trying to preserve it

How does this person know that the hoe was the murder weapon? Unless this person personally wielded it or was witness to it being used on one or more of the victims? I can just imagine the scenario. Perpetrator arrives to the beach early in the morning, swaggering along, confident in the knowledge that the inept RTP cannot possibly miss the murder weapon which was conveniently left close by. But wait!! The hoe's gone!!?? What the heck?!? That darn blind gardener had moved it from where it was strategically placed! No, we can't be having that. Where the hell is the gardener?? Hey you, what did you do with the hoe? What? Go and get it and bring it back to where you found it, pronto. After all, don't you know that it's stupid to disturb a murder scene??

"How does this person know that the hoe was the murder weapon?"

Just a guess, maybe it was all that blood encrusted on the business end.

As for scenario, see previous answer to BritTim.

Ah the blood that contained no DNA. Only in Thailand huh.

[Gweiloman]

So why did they produce the evidence in court as it has no bearing on the prosecutions case.

In fact if anything it undermines it as the hair was supposed to be another nail against the B2.

As far as I know that hair was not part of the evidence presented against the defendants.

Even back in September the police were saying that they couldn't get any useful information out of it.

September 19th: "DNA testing on a strand of blonde hair found in Ms Witheridge's hand also proved inconclusive"

Right, further to my earlier post and after I've emptied the contents of my stomach over your post, I would like to say this.

You state that the hair was not part of the evidence presented against the defendants. Your reasoning was that the police were unable to get any useful information from it and that it proved inconclusive. However, it is obvious to the rest of us that the reason it is not part of the evidence is because the DNA of the hair did not match the DNA of the suspect.

Naturally, you will try to rebut this (we don't expect any less from you) but for God's sake man, take a good look at yourself in the mirror and ask if you really believe the s**t that you post and ask youself, is whatever you are getting worth your own pride and dignity?

[Nigeone]

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/senior_police_officers_give_contradictory_evidence_at_hannah_witheridge_murder_trial_1_4215995

In court today, one of the main police investigators, Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod, said he had spoken to the police pathologist on the 2nd and 3rd of October, at the same time as the defendants were arrested and two weeks after the autopsies, but otherwise he had no further contact with him.

However, the defence lawyers representing the two Myanmar workers produced a statement from the pathologist, stating that Lt Col Nurod had made two separate trips to meet with him in Bangkok in late October, and again on the November 18 after both defendants had retracted their confessions.

The pathologists statement said that the meetings had included discussion on the hair found in Ms Witheridges hand.

When challenged in court, Lt Col Nurod admitted that further discussion about the hair strand had indeed taken place, but he did not reveal exactly what was said.

Hang on a minute!!!

You mean.... you mean.... someone is actually telling porky pies in court and under oath??!!?? Well, I never.....

They really haven't a clue have they what happens in a court case and investigation in a civilised country.

And what's worse they don't seem to care. I'm amazed it has got this far but I guess the like of this has never happened to them before and the court judge is probably clueless too as to,what to do. This would have been thrown out before it got,to,court in the UK and if, by some chance it ever made it to court it certainly wouldn't have got this far. It's a joke but a very sad joke ! RTP be very ashamed.

[berybert]

So why did they produce the evidence in court as it has no bearing on the prosecutions case.

In fact if anything it undermines it as the hair was supposed to be another nail against the B2.

As far as I know that hair was not part of the evidence presented against the defendants.

Even back in September the police were saying that they couldn't get any useful information out of it.

September 19th: "DNA testing on a strand of blonde hair found in Ms Witheridge's hand also proved inconclusive"

Right, further to my earlier post and after I've emptied the contents of my stomach over your post, I would like to say this.

You state that the hair was not part of the evidence presented against the defendants. Your reasoning was that the police were unable to get any useful information from it and that it proved inconclusive. However, it is obvious to the rest of us that the reason it is not part of the evidence is because the DNA of the hair did not match the DNA of the suspect.

Naturally, you will try to rebut this (we don't expect any less from you) but for God's sake man, take a good look at yourself in the mirror and ask if you really believe the s**t that you post and ask youself, is whatever you are getting worth your own pride and dignity?

They know this hair didn't belong to David or Hannah, how did they know this ?

Just one more question about the phone, did the two people who claimed the defendants gave it to them appear in court ? or was it again a case of a Policeman standing saying that is what happened ?.

[catsanddogs]

https://www.facebook.com/andy.hall.3110?fref=ts

0130am dinner for the Koh Tao legal defence team and translators after late finish. Defence witnesses commence at 10am

— with Aye Mar Cho and 6 others.

Andy

[catsanddogs]

So why did they produce the evidence in court as it has no bearing on the prosecutions case.

In fact if anything it undermines it as the hair was supposed to be another nail against the B2.

As far as I know that hair was not part of the evidence presented against the defendants.

Even back in September the police were saying that they couldn't get any useful information out of it.

September 19th: "DNA testing on a strand of blonde hair found in Ms Witheridge's hand also proved inconclusive"

Right, further to my earlier post and after I've emptied the contents of my stomach over your post, I would like to say this.

You state that the hair was not part of the evidence presented against the defendants. Your reasoning was that the police were unable to get any useful information from it and that it proved inconclusive. However, it is obvious to the rest of us that the reason it is not part of the evidence is because the DNA of the hair did not match the DNA of the suspect.

Naturally, you will try to rebut this (we don't expect any less from you) but for God's sake man, take a good look at yourself in the mirror and ask if you really believe the s**t that you post and ask youself, is whatever you are getting worth your own pride and dignity?

They know this hair didn't belong to David or Hannah, how did they know this ?

Just one more question about the phone, did the two people who claimed the defendants gave it to them appear in court ? or was it again a case of a Policeman standing saying that is what happened ?.

I believe it was reported that the people who were given the phone are out of the country!

Edited September 1, 2015 by catsanddogs

[Gweiloman]

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/senior_police_officers_give_contradictory_evidence_at_hannah_witheridge_murder_trial_1_4215995

In court today, one of the main police investigators, Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod, said he had spoken to the police pathologist on the 2nd and 3rd of October, at the same time as the defendants were arrested and two weeks after the autopsies, but otherwise he had no further contact with him.

However, the defence lawyers representing the two Myanmar workers produced a statement from the pathologist, stating that Lt Col Nurod had made two separate trips to meet with him in Bangkok in late October, and again on the November 18 after both defendants had retracted their confessions.

The pathologists statement said that the meetings had included discussion on the hair found in Ms Witheridges hand.

When challenged in court, Lt Col Nurod admitted that further discussion about the hair strand had indeed taken place, but he did not reveal exactly what was said.

Hang on a minute!!!

You mean.... you mean.... someone is actually telling porky pies in court and under oath??!!?? Well, I never.....

They really haven't a clue have they what happens in a court case and investigation in a civilised country.

And what's worse they don't seem to care. I'm amazed it has got this far but I guess the like of this has never happened to them before and the court judge is probably clueless too as to,what to do. This would have been thrown out before it got,to,court in the UK and if, by some chance it ever made it to court it certainly wouldn't have got this far. It's a joke but a very sad joke ! RTP be very ashamed.

RTP be very ashamed? Not only the RTP in my opinion. The whole judicial system system should be ashamed!!

But do you know what's even more alarming? This sort of farce probably goes on every day in one court or another in Thailand except that we're not privy to it as it's not being reported on. Thanks to TV and the majority of posters, this has been brought to our attention and most of us now realise how uncomfortable things can be if one steps foul of one of Thailand's finest (fortunately for some South of the Border, they grew up with this system and are completely comfortable with it).

[Chetzee]

Ali G

As far as I know that hair was not part of the evidence presented against the defendants.

Even back in September the police were saying that they couldn't get any useful information out of it.

September 19th: "DNA testing on a strand of blonde hair found in Ms Witheridge's hand also proved inconclusive"

so the poor girl gets beat to death in a style most of us will never have seen the like of .

she has a single stand of hair in her hand

now i know you're not saying that they were unable to extractant Dna from that hair , coz that would be plain unbelievable , let alone show a lack of ability ....

but they r saying the dna proved inconclusive ........ <deleted> what r they trying to do here , join the dots up and get to those two very small burmese men ....

so what of the DNA profile from that single hair .... did it not sound alarm bells , did it not sow a seed of doubt , did it not point the case in another direction ? ...... nah ... it was just inconclusive !!!!

you could not make it up ... and you ALI J keep defending it ...... it's like the blind leading the blind !

[Nigeone]

So will someone in here please sum up the many days and hours of the prosecution case in here please.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

As of now what evidence has the RTP produced in court? to have a conviction of the B2.

DNA evidence....NO

Witness to the event...NO

CCTV images ....NO

Confessions...... NO

Fingerprints or other such evidence......NO

Motive....... NO

Association or link to supposed murder weapon.......NO

Previous of suspects......NO

Am clutching at straws now..feel free to help me.!!

Have I missed something. How the hell did this 'perfect case' make it to court !!

Please....tell me...what evidence has been produced in how many days....NONE !

Thank you prosecution for a perfect defense on behalf of the B2.!!

[berybert]

Right, further to my earlier post and after I've emptied the contents of my stomach over your post, I would like to say this.

You state that the hair was not part of the evidence presented against the defendants. Your reasoning was that the police were unable to get any useful information from it and that it proved inconclusive. However, it is obvious to the rest of us that the reason it is not part of the evidence is because the DNA of the hair did not match the DNA of the suspect.

Naturally, you will try to rebut this (we don't expect any less from you) but for God's sake man, take a good look at yourself in the mirror and ask if you really believe the s**t that you post and ask youself, is whatever you are getting worth your own pride and dignity?

They know this hair didn't belong to David or Hannah, how did they know this ?

Just one more question about the phone, did the two people who claimed the defendants gave it to them appear in court ? or was it again a case of a Policeman standing saying that is what happened ?.

I believe it was reported that the people who were given the phone are out of the country!

Ah so just a couple of made up Burmese names.

[berybert]

So will someone in here please sum up the many days and hours of the prosecution case in here please.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

As of now what evidence has the RTP produced in court? to have a conviction of the B2.

DNA evidence....NO

Witness to the event...NO

CCTV images ....NO

Confessions...... NO

Fingerprints or other such evidence......NO

Motive....... NO

Association or link to supposed murder weapon.......NO

Previous of suspects......NO

Am clutching at straws now..feel free to help me.!!

Have I missed something. How the hell did this 'perfect case' make it to court !!

Please....tell me...what evidence has been produced in how many days....NONE !

Thank you prosecution for a perfect defense on behalf of the B2.!!

This would appear to be enough to normally get a conviction. Well either that or draw a conclusion that it was suicide.

[Nigeone]

So why did they produce the evidence in court as it has no bearing on the prosecutions case.

In fact if anything it undermines it as the hair was supposed to be another nail against the B2.

As far as I know that hair was not part of the evidence presented against the defendants.

Even back in September the police were saying that they couldn't get any useful information out of it.

September 19th: "DNA testing on a strand of blonde hair found in Ms Witheridge's hand also proved inconclusive"

So let's get this right. The hair didn't have any bearing on the prosecution case ! So the hair had to belong to someone but as it didn't fit with the B2 it was dismissed. Criminal. Was it to much to imagine that as it belonged to someone it might have belonged to someone involved in the crime. Maybe to close to home to investigate further.! Alarm bells should have gone off then with the investigation but as we all suspect ,or most of us do, the perps were already identified regardless of evidence. As has been proven over the course of the case. And the actually murderers are still out there and will do again and probably did before too!

[berybert]

So why did they produce the evidence in court as it has no bearing on the prosecutions case.

In fact if anything it undermines it as the hair was supposed to be another nail against the B2.

As far as I know that hair was not part of the evidence presented against the defendants.

Even back in September the police were saying that they couldn't get any useful information out of it.

September 19th: "DNA testing on a strand of blonde hair found in Ms Witheridge's hand also proved inconclusive"

So let's get this right. The hair didn't have any bearing on the prosecution case ! So the hair had to belong to someone but as it didn't fit with the B2 it was dismissed. Criminal. Was it to much to imagine that as it belonged to someone it might have belonged to someone involved in the crime. Maybe to close to home to investigate further.! Alarm bells should have gone off then with the investigation but as we all suspect ,or most of us do, the perps were already identified regardless of evidence. As has been proven over the course of the case. And the actually murderers are still out there and will do again and probably did before too!

I think have done again is closer to the truth. Numerous people have died in mysterious circumstances since. A hanging with hands tied behind back and a woman found dead in the same guest house are 2 that spring to mind.

[catsanddogs]

From the Telegraph 10th July

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/11730571/Thai-backpacker-murder-family-leaves-court-in-tears-as-relatives-describe-loss-for-first-time.html

The doctor revealed also that he found a hair pulled out at its root in Ms Witheridge’s hand that he thought was blonde. “It was sent to the lab to be tested, but they were unable to establish its colour,” said Dr Pawat. “To my eyes, it was blonde.”

[Nigeone]

From the Telegraph 10th July

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/11730571/Thai-backpacker-murder-family-leaves-court-in-tears-as-relatives-describe-loss-for-first-time.html

The doctor revealed also that he found a hair pulled out at its root in Ms Witheridges hand that he thought was blonde. It was sent to the lab to be tested, but they were unable to establish its colour, said Dr Pawat. To my eyes, it was blonde.

All these examples,and there's so many, only point one way !! What most have thought anyway. COVER UP !

[catsanddogs]

Sept 18th

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/thai-police-question-british-man-christopher-alan-ware-over-british-tourist-murders-on-koh-tao/story-fnizu68q-1227061922322

The police chief said that fragments of hair belonging to a foreigner had been found by Bangkok forensics experts, in the hand of Ms Witheridge, 23, who was murdered on Monday morning, along with Mr Miller, 24. Mr Ware has blonde hair and Mr Miller had brown hair.

He did not explain how the police knew that the hair was from a foreigner, and from the potential killer, rather than from Mr Miller or one of Ms Witheridge’s other companions.

[catsanddogs]

I'm sorry to ask such a question but having just read this report, dated 17th September - where would the bodies have been taken to be frozen and would this have destroyed DNA?

Pathologists reportedly could not yet determine the time of death because the bodies has been frozen before being sent for the post-mortem.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/11103274/DNA-found-on-body-of-murdered-British-backpacker-in-Thailand-no-match-to-suspects.html

[BritTim]

I'm sorry to ask such a question but having just read this report, dated 17th September - where would the bodies have been taken to be frozen and would this have destroyed DNA?

Pathologists reportedly could not yet determine the time of death because the bodies has been frozen before being sent for the post-mortem.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/11103274/DNA-found-on-body-of-murdered-British-backpacker-in-Thailand-no-match-to-suspects.html

Freezing does not significantly degrade DNA. If I recall correctly, the bodies were sent to the Police General Hospital in Bangkok, but I stand to be corrected on this.